User talk:Mhhutchins/Archive/2009Sep-Oct

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bed & Breakfast -- ampersand?

Bed & Breakfast appears under that title in three verifiede pubs, all verified by you. It is in the recent collection The Best of Gene Wolfe under the title "Bed and Breakfast"), which i have in hand. Can you double check the ampersand to confirm that the variant is needed? -DES Talk 17:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Two of them are definitely with the ampersand. The other one (in the Tor collection) has the "and". So a variant is needed. I'll move my "and" record over after you've created the "&" variant. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The variant has been created, it is Bed and Breakfast. (In fact I had created it before I queried you, because I had to be done with the book.) I left Bed & Breakfast as the parent in the variant relationship -- it can always be flipped if there is reason to. Thanks -DES Talk 19:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


I'm happy to run the script, but which types of verification are you interested in? All, or Primary only, or Primary transient only? And in what order - oldest first, or maybe separate the types and do them in date order? You have 7,254 in the latest backup, and doing 1,300 Transients alone for Bluesman earlier was a bit of a strain on the Wiki I think, so smaller chunks or more precise requirements might be good. BLongley 22:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with the Primary transients so that I can move them over to Primary 2 verifications. If it's too much for the Wiki would you be able to attach the list to an email? Thanks. MHHutchins 22:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, here's the rest of your Primary Transients. Can do Email too for other sections, but it might be just as well for you to ask for smaller sections when you're interested? I know when I'm confronted with a huge task, I get severely un-enthused. BLongley 00:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
All Primary Transients verifications have been moved to Primary 2 verifications. MHHutchins 02:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

September 1985

Seem to be missing a couple of selections for that month. Every other one has at least four. Found [The Glamour] and [Maia], both of which have notes stating NOT an SFBC selection yet Locus lists them both as SFBC editions. Notes are unsigned. Thoughts? ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The number of selections can't be used as a determining factor because some months may have more alternate selections than others. I'm not sure about the notes, but I could have placed them there when they weren't mentioned on the lists that Andrew Wheeler provided to the rec.arts.sf.written newsgroup. But I've seen some that he's missed (and his list includes some that Locus missed.) I don't think it would hurt to place them on the wiki list but note in the pub record that there's a chance they may not have been SFBC selections. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I just looked and saw that there were no alternates for that month, which is quite unusual for that time period. That increases the odds that they were selections. If you're working on the list for 1985, go ahead and add those two titles, and I'll work on the pub records. MHHutchins 21:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The records have been updated. Here are the links: The Glamour and Maia. The first pub had a pending update sitting in the queue (from Kevin) adding the cover artist and gutter code, so I had to approve it before making any further changes. MHHutchins 22:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, will add those two. The only selection left that I don't know what to do with is the Nicholas Slope game book. He's not even on the DB and it's a stretch to add this just because the SFBC offered it. Even the Vidal selection was odd, but at least the trade edition is listed here. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I've come across a few that I've not linked for the same reason (and this was probably the trade edition anyway.) And read the Wikipedia article about Duluth and you'll see why it was a SFBC selection and why it should be in the database. Even the literati dip their toes in the speculative pond. MHHutchins 22:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I might just have to find that one!!! Okay then, another year bites the dust! I notice you use the links with the P|title format and I've just been using the URLs. Both take one to the same place. '85 is a mixture as many were already there. One oddity is that Locus doesn't list the two Asimov Omnibi from December. ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Please feel free to use the tag template to link if you find that easier. And I've found in comparing the Wheeler lists to Locus1 that not only do they each miss titles, Locus1's dates can sometimes be one-two months off. Starting in the mid-90s I compared the two more closely, so I need to go back from 1984 to about 1994 to see if I can find more differences. If I'd done that earlier I would have caught the September 1985 situation. You may find even more if you continue to link titles and create new pub records. Thanks. MHHutchins 23:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


It turns out that Dean R. Koontz' "Beastchild", which first appeared in your verified Venture Science Fiction Magazine, August 1970, was significantly expanded for book publication, so I changed it from Serial to Shortfiction. I also added information about textual mangling variations to the Novel title. Unfortunately, one of the Novel award nominations is still linked to the novella record, but I don't think we can fix that until the award editor goes live :( Ahasuerus 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm always suspicious of "complete novels" in one issue of a magazine, especially after the pulps gave way to the digests. Odds are that there are dozens of such situations throughout the website. Maybe one day we'll be able to link records based on content. Thanks for making the changes to get this title closer to the truth. MHHutchins 22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Easter

I have the same edition as your verified pub BLCKSTR1982 and the title page includes the subtitle "or Faust Aleph-Null" whereas the publication record does not. This and this other publications of the title include the subtitle (one with and one without a comma). Both just add the variant to the publication, without making a variant title. I've seen subtitles handled this way elsewhere (and have done them like this, myself), i.e. no variant. So, this is my chance to verify that this is the proper way to handle it, since I've got the excuse of asking about one of your verified pubs. Thanks. ~Ron --Rtrace 06:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I may be in the minority here, but I personally feel that Black Easter or Faust Aleph-Null is the actual title of the novel. I don't consider these alternate or extended titles to be subtitles. Pulling a random book off the shelf: In the Ice King's Palace: The World in Amber, Book 2. I consider everything after the colon to be a subtitle and shouldn't be part of the title record, but have no problem with it being in the publication record. The publication you cite was entered incorrectly (I failed to use the title on the title page, but absent-mindedly used the cover title.) I'm going to correct the record to show the extended title. I also don't feel that such titles warrant a variant, unless the novel is ever published without the extended title, which would be a variant. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. MHHutchins 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I pulled the book and saw that I'd made another mistake. Mine is a second printing "Printed in Canada". I'm going to remove my verification of the first record and create a new. Then you can verify the original record. Thanks again. MHHutchins 22:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I checked every publication of this title and it appears (according to each pub's OCLC record) that almost every one was titled Black Easter or Faust Aleph-Null with variations of where or if a comma was used. (Again, a situation that I don't feel requires a variant, but others may disagree.) I've changed all the records that I could find. The one I was unable to find was the omnibus After Such Knowledge published by Legend in 1991. I'm tempted to change the title record to the full title. MHHutchins 22:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've edited the US edition, stealing your rather good notes. ~Ron --Rtrace 03:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I stole your cover scan. Guess that makes us even. MHHutchins 03:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Quickening

Before I get to far into the series, this appears to have a May date according to Locus. OK to change? BLongley 21:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, but note the source. The pub itself is not month dated. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Frontispiece in Claw of the Conciliator?

In your verified The Claw of the Conciliator, is Frontispiece (The Claw of the Conciliator) really an INTERVIEW and not INTERIORART? --MartyD 10:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least the first five letters were correct... Something I've just learned: you can't easily change a record with INTERVIEW type into any other type. I had to drop the record, create a new one, and delete the orphan. Thanks for catching the error. MHHutchins 14:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I just learned that same lesson on a couple of other instances.... --MartyD 14:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviews of The Vulcan Academy Murders

Awfully considerate of you to be the verifier on both Science Fiction Review, Summer 1985 and Fantasy Review, February 1985.... Would these Stuart Napier reviews of "The Vulcan Academy Murders" -- 997586 and 1007659 -- from those pubs by any chance actually be the same? --MartyD 10:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The one in FR is more tightly edited. Other than a slight difference in the opening paragraph, they are basically the same. MHHutchins 14:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. I'm sure the battle against duplicate reviews and excerpts is a losing one, but I'm going to submit a title merge of the above two. --MartyD 10:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Duplicated Man

Given your Airmont comments recently, perhaps you can date this now? I have a price-obscured copy with a "12-72" code, but it might be Scott's version. BLongley 22:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My copy doesn't have a date code, and its price seems too high for 1972. Scott's first appear to be too low, but look at this Airmont Book with a price of $0.60 and a 1972 date. I'd say yours was the same as Scott. If only he'd respond to his wiki page! MHHutchins 14:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
My copy is $0.95, and has a "01-76" code, so Bill's copy is probably the same as Scott's. Funny thing is though, mine doesn't show on the title page for 'The Duplicated Man'. Any idea how that is possible? Willem H. 15:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Yours is under the "James Blish and Robert A. W. Lowndes" title, not the "James Blish and Robert Lowndes" one. You should unmerge it and remerge it with the correct title. BLongley 21:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Sometimes you can't see the obvious. Willem H. 08:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


Noticed a note you left on R(on)Trace's page that you are 'doing' Lovecraft. Currey has done a more extensive checklist of him than ANY other author he lists. I have no intention of doing anything with it except skipping past. If you like I could scan the pages and e-mail them to you. It's 15+ of small print that "... includes all books pamphlets, and ephemeral material by Lovecraft including those completed by other hands. Reprint collections with title changes or rearrangement of contents are recorded." It's quite extensive. ~bill, --Bluesman 21:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got so many projects on my table (or hidden in the drawers), but, sure, send me the scans. If you don't have my e-mail address, use the one associated with my account here (I'm not sure if it's the same, but I check both.) Thanks (I think?) MHHutchins 14:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Scans sent! ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Scans received, unzipped, and very readable. Thanks. Now I have something to do!!! MHHutchins 00:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nebula Awards 25

You verified Nebula Awards 25 with the cover artist as Vaughn Andrews. Can you double check to see if he is credited as the artist? I have Nebula Awards 22 with a similar cover and there is no artist credit. The back cover of #22 has "Cover Design by Vaughn Andrews." --Marc Kupper|talk 01:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no artwork per se, only a photograph which is credited to "Peter Arnold Inc., ©Manfred Kage". Instead of figuring out which is a corporation and which is an individual, I entered Vaughn Andrews who is credited for jacket design. This is one of those cases where the lack of a separate field for jacket designer leaves the record's credits somewhat nebulous (pardon the pun). If you look at the record for Nebula 24] I've given credit to Michael Stuckey because it is artwork. Still Andrews was the designer of the cover, but I could only credit him in the notes. I wish the standards were more clear about what to do in these situations, i.e. "If... then..." For example "If the cover doesn't contain art, then the designer is credited in the field", or "If the cover art is credited only to a corporation, use that credit. If it's credited to both an individual and a corporation, use the individual credit only." or "...add another field to credit the corporation." Until it's more specifically spelled out, it comes down to the subjective decision by the editor. MHHutchins 15:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, August 3, 1981

See User talk:DESiegel60#Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, August 3, 1981. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A Feast Unknown - added cover, but artist needs changing?

Morning! This. [1]. I added a cover image, [2], after matching my copy to your ver. At bottom right front cover there is a signature "JPenalva" (over) "©79". I think the credit should be given to him. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Even the note in the pub says the credit given in the book is incorrect. But there's nothing that I've been able to find in the standards that say we change the credit. In fact, it states "If there is both a signature and a printed credit, follow the printed credit." Seems like an area for discussion. Until any changes or clarifications are made in the standards, I'm going to create a variant so that the work shows up on Penalva's page. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but the instructions we are supposed to be following have just revealed to me that I am the true artist of numerous art works signed by others? Point is, that is a flawed rule. but I can not at this time conduct such a discussion, though I can not rationalize a defense for the rule as it is. Signature always trumps copyright in my book. Secondary sourcing agrees amount to a super trump run. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I totally understand what you're saying and agree with most of it. The rules for cover art credit need to be set up as "If...then..." standards. The record in question clearly states that the printed credit is wrong. The title no longer shows up on Enric's page. It's right there on Penalva's page. Under the present system of recording credits as they appear in the book, this is the only solution. Removing completely the credit for Enric sets a precedent that others may use to justify changing printed credits for authorship. Would you want this novel to be credited to Gardner Fox only, even though the book has "James Harvey" printed on the cover and "Moonchild" printed on the title page? Does "signature always trump copyright" in this case? If we ever get around to discussing standards again, I'll start a discussion on artist credits. Right now, I don't know what else to do. Re: your artistic endeavors. I haven't found any that give you printed credit...yet. If we do, I'll set up variants giving the true artists credit. :-) Thanks. MHHutchins 16:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are forgetting that the product for an artist is the art, while the book as a product is basically always been for sale under pseudonyms and ghost writing. I think the two products stand apart, otherwise almost every Playboy press book would have cover artist PEI, Inc. The reality of a visual product is that the signature is the artist's most clearly appreciated product credit on display. His signature is the clue to his work and his getting more work. You can almost see the titanic battles that took place to get artist crediting at all in books and later you can see the battle lines being drawn between the artist and the 'cover designers'. So the signature must trump on the physical art no matter the printed word, while the title page authorship for books is presumed for the greatest clarity that people have found. In the case of books, it would be fair to state that the spine and cover have author names used for sales promotion. That the copyright page has author's names used in copyright for managing the authors' or the publishers' fiscal portion of the sales. Thus the title page became the least disturbed of the three/four sourcing points available. But, in all the cases the product is the book, while the art is it's own product and the ownership must be on the Art, then copyright page, with a caveat to detailed claims in print, with some notice given to other claims made. In many cases the art actually has no real connection to the book, but the art always is the most direct connector to the artist. Thus, IMO, art is the most critical key to the who/what the artist uses to describe himself. In a nutshell, hah hah, the art and his signature have to be the most correct path to the artist and the use of pseudonyms for artists as found from any other source, except advertising by-lines used by some artists on more recent copyright pages, is a 'dumb down' of the use of the printed material. Dragoondelight 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
We're not talking about copyrights here. We're not talking about pseudonyms. We're talking about a printed credit. It's quite clear that when an author is credited on the title page of the book, that this credit is used for the ISFDB record. It should also be clear that when the cover art is credited in a book, that should also be a part of the ISFDB record. We don't use copyright and we don't use signatures UNLESS there is no other way of identifying the artist. The first line or two of the above comment is so far out in left field, that I find it hard to respond. I think you forget that the artist doesn't always sign his work, and in many cases, is not even allowed to sign his work. Placing the art of painting on a different level than the art of writing is absurd. The statement would lead one to believe that artists don't create art for hire, but only for the aesthetics of creating art. Cover art is as much a product as the words (and in most cases wouldn't even exist without the words.) MHHutchins 21:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but the author relationship is an apples to oranges relationship to the artwork. A comparison of an author's use of a pseudonym is not the same as that of artist. BTW, if I remember correctly the book example you gave was actually of a 'claimed' pirated version which reprinted and edited the material, and thus was not a true pseudonym. Dragoondelight 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
When reassigning the credit for the art, I did not create a pseudonym. The miscredit for Penalva's art was a publisher's error. The publication of Fox's words under another writer's name was the publisher's error. Pseudonyms did not come into the picture on either count. MHHutchins 21:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
In all, I think everyone needs to think clearly that art is a totally separate data type from the use of the printed word. --Dragoondelight 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Preaching to the choir here. Yes cover art credit should have its own set of standards. Until then, we get by with the standards we have. MHHutchins 21:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
In fact, I know that many 'editors' totally ignore the subject, as they have in getting the cover art, it (art) is a totally subjective aspect in this db recording of facts to them. If you think about it, the art is only there for it's sales value, not it's relationship to the written word, thus it needs to recorded and valued, but we must approach doing it in the manner used by the artist. If you sign your work/homework then you get the credit or the onus for it's impact on sales. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that an artist can actually be blamed on poor book sales. If it happens at all, the blame would go to the head of the publisher's art department. MHHutchins 21:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
It does seem pathetic to think that many copies are sold for the impact of an artist, not for the written word. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This boggles the mind. I can't believe that more copies of a book are sold based on the cover than on the words. Sometimes it's only two words on the cover that sell a book, e.g. "Stephen King", "Danielle Steele", "Dan Brown". MHHutchins 21:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Harry, I entreat you to spearhead an effort to reform the standards for cover art credit. Anyone with that much passion needs to start the dialogue that will bring some order to how it's currently being done. MHHutchins 21:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Two Reviews?

Hi, there are two reviews by Geis of Silverberg's "Chains of the Sea" listed for this publication Is that correct? Cheers Jonschaper 03:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Geis was funny that way. In the first column titled "More Off-the-Cuff Reviews...For People With Short Attention Spans" (which title turns out to be more appropriate than he realized) he reviews the book by saying he'd read it more than two months before and couldn't remember a thing about it, ergo, coming to the conclusion that the stories must not be memorable. The other review written two weeks later (in the column titled "The Geisorcist's Woes") he tries to assuage a guilty conscience for the previous review, apologizes for his flippant and cavalier treatment of the book, and had since reread the book. He proceeds to do a story-by-story review of the anthology...and comes to the same conclusion! Great stuff. MHHutchins 03:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The World of Null-A - possible same printing?

Morning! This. [3]. I think I have the same copy, but your notation is confusing upon comparison. Does your copy read like this. SBN on copyright page. Berkley Medallion Edition, January 1977 (spacing of approx. two lines) Fourth printing. My copy also has 0-425-03322-8 in pricing line at very top of front page. 0-425-03322-8 (spacing) 150 running downwards at bottom spine. Do we match or not, please? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

From your description it seems we have the same edition. I must have missed the ISBN on the first page, but I recall Berkley doing that in other books. That's why I state that the ISBN was derived from the SBN printed on the copyright page. I've been looking for the book off and on throughout the day, and it appears to be MIA. Go ahead and update the pub and take over primary verification. If it decides to show up later I can do a primary 2 verification. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Please leave your ver, and I will update it to point out how the date and printing relationship looks. If/when your copy returns, then you can make sure of it's correctness. I have a message pending with Bluesman over the possibility that his ver and the Third printing are the same. I do not have that book, but I am wondering about the method Berkley Medallion was using for printings here. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Submission made of how I saw the data, and your acceptance requested. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction Review, Winter 1980

Could you please double check whether the author of "Inside the Whale: Letter in Response to Christopher Priest's Outside the Whale" is credited as Jack Williamson or Jack Wiliamson in your verified Science Fiction Review, Winter 1980? TIA! Ahasuerus 18:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It should have been the double-L Williamson, not the writer who only uses one L. :) I've made the correction. Thanks for catching the error. MHHutchins 18:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Microverse

Scanned in a cover image, added one interior artwork and anotes to [The Microverse] My edition lacks a price on the dustjacket other than as part of the barcode on the back cover. If I remember right I bought this through a Science Book Club (name may have been slightly different) but there is no indication of any club. No 'impression' on the back cover. In '89 there should be a CDN price. but then.....? Does your copy differ? ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mine is the trade edition. The price is printed on the front flap of the dustjacket as follows: "IN U.S. (over) $29.95 (over) [line] (over) IN CANADA (over) $34.95" The barcode on the back has both the UPC code (9 780553 057058) and the price code (52995) above the code "N 0-553-05705-7>2995". Locus1 gives the following listing "The Microverse (SFBC #58048, May ’90 [Apr ’90], $17.98, hc) Reprint (Bantam Spectra 1989)" Could this be yours? MHHutchins 23:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Just checked. This is not on the SFBC wiki listing for 1990 but there is a record for it. MHHutchins 23:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Definitely no SFBC # anywhere. I'm loathe to create a second Book Club entry with nothing to fill in the fields. Even the bar-code with the price embedded would be irrelevent. Perhaps the SFBC# was just a flier number and nothing made it to the jacket? Though this is pretty early for them to leave the bar-code. And the copyright page is complete. Except for the missing price, and on the bar-code at the back, mine has the same "N...." but not the >2995 at the end. It does have the 52995 above the bar-code. ~Bill, --Bluesman 16:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Science Fiction

I just fixed the cover for Soviet Science Fiction and noticed the cover Serial Number doesn't match our Catalog ID. Can you check Tuck again please? (Mine is a bit buried at the moment.) BLongley 19:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Tuck matched the number on the scanned cover. A couple of numbers in the record's field had been transposed. I've corrected the record to match Tuck and the cover. Thanks. MHHutchins 19:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Cheers! Hopefully Bluesman won't revert it from the other sources... BLongley 19:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't dare! Dyslexia aside...... ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


I have created the stub page Magazine:Urania‎, in part because I wanted somewhere to place the link to the Wikipedia article. I added some basic data, largely from the Wikipedia article.

I am not sure if the progress on Urania‎ is to the point that links should be placed on a magazine wiki page or not yet. I have not yet mentioned this to User:ErnestoVeg not wanting to overload him. Let me know if you think I should notify him of this page, or wait a while. -DES Talk 19:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's progressing steadily. The first couple of years are complete, but we've reached the point where they were publishing three issues per month (!). I'll take a look at the Wiki page, but I agree that we don't want to overwhelm Ernesto this soon. Let's get a while longer. Thanks for creating the page. MHHutchins
I have started to link some issues, and found an oddity in dating which i have queried Ernesto about. -DES Talk 16:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh you're gonna have fun when they start publishing weekly issues! MHHutchins 16:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm already into 1954, 3 per month issues. ): -DES Talk 17:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Disappearance

You recently approved an edit by User:Don Erikson creating a new pub of The Disappearance. I thought I had that edit on hold, but perhaps I failed to click correctly. It looked to me as if the edit was about to create a duplicate pub, as I said in a msg on User talk:Don Erikson. Did you check existing pubs, and if so, what did you see that convinced you it was not a duplicate? -DES Talk 22:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You may have placed it on hold while I was working on it, as I would never have touched it if the hold was visible on my queue screen. I'll look on the Don's page to see which printing you're referring to. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I should have looked more closer and I would have noticed the similarity. Thanks for catching that. Don usually enters from pubs in hand, so I don't scrutinize his submissions as I would a newer editor. MHHutchins 22:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed he does, but I have noticed that he sometimes fails to check thoroughly for an existing matching pub. I trust his entries to be accurate, but not always to be new to the db. It is an error anyone can make, of course. -DES Talk 23:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping we get some improvements to the hold system in due course. if we get more active moderators, this kind of collision will become more common I would think. -DES Talk 23:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The first time it happened to me (I was a new moderator) it made me pretty hot. I'd placed the submission on hold and came back after more than ten minutes of research to find it was no longer there. That was when I learned that it wasn't deliberate and that it could happen without the other party knowing the edit was on hold. It still happens about every couple months or so, and it doesn't bother me, regardless of which end I'm on. It doesn't happen enough to make it high on my priorities. I'm not sure how to change it except making it impossible for another editor to approve or reject a held submission. Even then, there has to be an override in some cases. Maybe the "hardreject" option could override it. MHHutchins 23:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it isn't a top development priority. Ideally, when a mod clicks "approve" and a hold by a different mod is in place a window would pop up saying "This submission is now on hold by user XYZ. Do you want to continue anyway? Yes/No". Much like the overwrite warning when uploading a new version of an image.
I do understand that it isn't intentional, and I've been on both sides of such collisions. I wouldn't have even raised the point had I not found a problem with the submission. -DES Talk 23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It so happens that I have been thinking along similar lines the last few weeks. We don't want moderators to approve submissions held by other moderators by accident, but if a moderator becomes unavailable, the ability to have another moderator reject/approve their held submissions can be useful.
The best approach I have been able to come up with so far is to add the ability to UNHOLD submissions. That way you won't be able to approve held submissions by accident, but you will be able to UNHOLD them explicitly and then approve/reject them. Ahasuerus 23:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S. At one point I created Feature Request 2829006, which envisions a somewhat different implementation of the same approach. Ahasuerus 23:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Such an UNHOLD doesn't have that effect unless a change is also made to prevent mods approving a submission held by anyone else, correct? -DES Talk 00:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The "HOLD/APPROVE/REJECT" options at the bottom of the screen will need to be changed to "Held by Joe Moderator/UNHOLD" when the submission is on hold by someone else; perhaps a few other things may need to be adjusted. We'll also need to add a check preventing submission approval/rejection if the approving moderator is different from the holding moderator, but another moderator already has the default approval screen displayed. Ahasuerus 00:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't an override-able warning, such as I suggest above, do the job at least as well? -DES Talk 00:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The only significant difference in functionality will be the ability to remove your own hold if you realize that you don't have the time or the expertise to research the submission or if you discover than another moderator is in the middle of processing related submissions. It's not a big deal, but it has happened to me a few times. Ahasuerus 00:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. I've placed submissions on hold only later to realize that I just wasn't the right mod to deal with the issue. Not just for lacking knowledge but more often for lacking tact and diplomacy. :) Having the ability to remove a hold would be nice. MHHutchins 03:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, FR 2829006 has been updated to reflect this discussion. Priority changed from Low to Medium. Ahasuerus 03:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
"UNHOLD" would be a good start, "HOLD for other Moderator" would be nice at times - I usually leave all SFBC submissions for Mike for instance. But that would be a short-term option while I can't think of anyone better to deal with such. Holding submissions that affect another known moderator's verified pubs might be nice too, but with multiple primaries enabled that won't necessarily work either. BLongley 20:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
But however you implement it, it should prevent or at least make less likely approving a held submission by accident, but make it possible to approve a held submission if the holding mod is unavailable. -DES Talk 00:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
That's the idea! :) Ahasuerus 00:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Erikson and matching pubs

More like 4 times in two days, look at the talk page more closely. -DES Talk 21:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Chilson's "Written in Sand" vs "Written in the Sand"

Hi, can you double check the title for this vs this Jonschaper 01:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The author credit for the magazine should be "Robert Chilson" but the title is "Written in Sand". And the titles as reprinted in the anthologies must be wrong as well. Davis would reprint the pages exactly as they appeared in the magazine. I'll make the corrections and the merge. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


[This] pub record refers to an OCLC record as supposedly stating a price. I can't find one. Is there some hidden link that reveals this? Don't think I've seen a record yet that shows a price, but then you've done a lot more surfing at WorldCat than I have. I think whoever did the note doesn't understand the [1st Ed. doesn't really mean "unstated" as nearly all the Currey entries that I've cross-checked to OCLC have that same designation. In going through Norton I have come across, so far, about five OCLC numbers in pub notes that have had '000's added to the front of the number to make a seven digit one, but each leads to a 'nul' search, so I've been truncating them to eliminate the '000's and then they search fine. How does one slap a wrist in cyberspace?? ;-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OCLC rarely mentions a price, so I'm not sure why the note cites OCLC as the source. There are extra fields that are hidden in OCLC, that can be found through FirstSearch. This is usually available to library users with passwords, but some libraries leave it open (probably by mistake) for web users. But every time we find an open one, it gets "fixed" so that we don't have access. The one that's linked on this help page has been closed. You might ask Ahasuerus if he's find another unsecure connection. I'll look around as well. This may be the source that is incorrectly cited in this pub record.
About the leading zeros for OCLC records, someone working on the Norton records may have done this without realizing they're giving wrong numbers. The OCLC record number is of varying length and doesn't require leading numbers, unlike the LCCN permalink pages. At least you learned that the leading zeroes are "misleading". MHHutchins 23:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
When the first one I tried went to a Chinese novel, knew something was off.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Chalker and Owings has an entry for this one and they give a different price. They also characterize it as a collection. Since it's small, I'll paste the entry (from the FCPI section):
GARAN THE ETERNAL, by Andre Norton, 1972, pp.199, $4.95. 1300 copies printed and bound. Contents: Introduction/ Garin of Tav/ Garan of Yu-Lac/ Legacy from Sorn-Fen/ One Spell Wizard. Jacket by Morris Scott Dollens.
Mass market paperback: DAW, 1972, actually preceded the hardcover but wasn't supposed to. Believe it or not, the first two stories were originally announced from Visionary/Fantasy Pubs. back in 1936! The two different spellings are the author's. Paired with 2 contemporary tales from the author's Witch-World series for an interesting comparison.
I won't submit anything based on this since I don't want to step on any edits Bill may have pending. ~Ron --Rtrace 00:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Jon Brunner

Hi, I assume this is a mispelling of John Brunner here Cheers Jonschaper 04:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a typo. Thanks for catching it. (Entering those pubs with dozens of entries, I wonder that there's not more errors!) I've corrected it. MHHutchins 04:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles M. Brown vs Charles N. Brown

I assume this is a typo here and have submitted an edit. Cheers Jonschaper 04:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wandering Stars - Geo. or George

Your verified pub. Geo. Alec Effinger? If Des's is Geo. it looks like there could be a single change since this anthology and reprints are the only place it appears.--swfritter 12:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's "Geo." in my copy. I'll change it. Thanks for catching the error. MHHutchins 17:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the credit in my copy and two others based on OCLC records. That leaves DES's bce and Bluesman's pb edition. The Gold story should be checked as well. It credits "Horace L. Gold" in my copy and I saw it given as "H. L. Gold" in some editions. MHHutchins 18:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Horace L. Gold in mine too.--swfritter 13:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Visible and Invisible by E. F. Benson

You Tuck-verifed Visible and Invisible. User:ChanurBe recently added a note to one of the stories ("Mr. Tilby's Seance") giving the LCCN for this book, which i have added s a note. However, the LoC record lists the title of this story as "Mr. Tilly's Séance" with an accented e. Do you think the title should be changed based on the LoC record, or retained based on Tuck? The form with the accent is already on file as 964721, so we should do either a merge or a variant, but i'm not sure which. How reliable is Tuck on matters like accented characters in titles? -DES Talk 16:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the accent should be added, the titles merged and a variant not created. Tuck wasn't big on distinguishing slight changes such as this. And I'm not either. I don't think the use of an accent (or not) should be the basis for a variant. Think of how many variants there'd be on P. J. Farmer's page! IMHO. MHHutchins 16:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, we can discuss, if need be, the general issue on Rules & Standards. I tend to favor creating such variants, at least when both forms are well documented, but my view is not cast in concrete. In any case, thanks for the input. i will do the merge. -DES Talk 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Worlds at War updated

Just an FYI that your Tuck-verified Worlds at War has been updated based on Andrew Darlington's article "The Star Seeker: Francis G. Rayer" which lists Francis G. Rayer as the uncredited editor, gives the full first names for "Draco" and "Hannah" and "outs" them as E. R. James pseudonyms. Given this information, we could even argue that it's a Collection of 4 E. R. James stories and 1 Rayer story, but it's probably best to leave it as an Anthology since that's where our users will expect to find it.

Darlington's article, especially the biblio section at the bottom, includes other interesting data points about Rayer, but I don't know when I may get a chance to enter it since I am concentrating on development at the moment. I miss data entry, it's relaxing and even therapeutic :( Ahasuerus 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the record. I'll look at the article when I get a chance. Urania has taken up all of my spare time, so much so that most of my personal projects have been pushed to the back of the line. C'est la vie. MHHutchins 01:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, we were in desperate need of development support for a long time and we always wanted to have more editors contributing, so I guess we got what we asked for :-) Ahasuerus 01:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Myron R. Lewis credit for "The Dueling Machine"

For some entries Myron is given co-credit with Ben Bova, and for other's he's not. This page disagrees with this page re if he's credited in "Study War No More". Could you check if he is? Thanks Jonschaper 00:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Lewis is not credited in my copy of the pb. And according to OCLC he's not credited in the St. Martin's hc as well. It is my understanding that Lewis was a friend who gave Bova the idea, Bova wrote the story and gave him as co-author in the magazine publication. I'm not sure if he's even credited in the Forward in Time collection. MHHutchins 01:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave those as is for now then unless you think I should submit to remove the Lewis credit from the hc. Jonschaper 02:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Star Port vs Starport by Sydney J. Bounds

Variant or typo? vs Thanks Jonschaper 00:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's correctly recorded as "Starport" in the anthology. This source gives the same title in the magazine, so I don't know what source was used to create the magazine. I recall Blongley working on this magazine a few months ago. I guess it wouldn't hurt to ask him. Good luck. MHHutchins 01:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Collector Showcase is probably more accurate than the ebay source. BLongley 07:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki image URLs

On ErnestoVeg's talk page you wrote "The system places images into different subfolders when they're first uploaded. I haven't been able to figure out why or how it places images into these subfolders."

What the wiki does is take the image name and hash it (MD5 hash). It then takes the first character (hex digit) in the hash and makes it the first subfolder, and takes the first two characters in the hash and makes them the 2nd subfolder. So, for example the image Image:PRDNDPRJDD2009.jpg apparently has a hash that starts "1a", so the file name is The "/1/1a/" subfolder names derive from the hash.

According to the wiki documentation, this is done because having too many files in the same directory can cause problems. How many is "too many" or what sort of problems is not stated -- I suspect performance issues. (The documetation only says "since many filesystems don't handle large directories well...") There is a configuration option to switch this behavior off, but creating the subfolders is the default, and no doubt Al saw no reason to change it when he installed the wiki software.


I hope this is helpful. -DES Talk 14:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for the info. MHHutchins 15:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This looks of interest to programmers that know what an MD5 hash actually is. :-) But this might be a solution in search of a problem - where/why do we want to know where an ISFDB image for a particular publication should be? BLongley 20:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Frankly I don't think there is much that we can or should do with this info, it merely answers the questions "How does the wiki software come up with subfolder names?" ("A: It computes them based on the file name") and "Why does the wiki put images in subfolders anyway?" ("A: to avoid over-large directories") for those who wonder how & why the wiki works as it does. Mike had indicated lack of knowledge, and implied curiosity, in another discussion, so i passed on information. While there might be some occasion where we wanted to compute the file path from the file name, i can't offhand think what it would be. -DES Talk 20:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The question arose, as DES states, out of curiosity, nothing more nor less. If anyone else should ask, I'll have a simple response, rudimentary as it will most likely be. There's no need to worry about Forbidden Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge or Pandora's Box here. MHHutchins 06:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
That's what you claim, but we know about your secret plan to rewrite the Wiki software! Ahasuerus
I suppose if the Wiki software changed then knowing how to convert our existing data would be good, just like in the move. By the way, is anyone looking to fix the site-credit routine for that? BLongley 17:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Checking the code, I see that I may have misunderstood the nature of the change. We now credit Bookscans if (and only if) the URL starts with "". However, we have only 50 "fatcow" URLs and 479 regular "" URLs that are still alive and kicking. I will change the code to credit Bookscan when either version is used -- thanks for the heads up! Ahasuerus 19:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Science Fiction Review, Summer 1986

The review of The Great SF Stories #14 (1952) in your verified Science Fiction Review, Summer 1986 now credits Isaac Asimov rather than an obscure impostor, "Isaac Asimiov" :) Ahasuerus 20:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that impostor (among others) pops ups every now and then. Thanks for keeping him in his place. MHHutchins 15:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A Science Fiction Argosy

My copy of this pub has a gutter code of 14N (date?) and the following discrepancies: The Cure is by Kuttner and Moore rather than Padgett. Apology To Inky is by Robert M. Green, Jr. rather than Green with no Jr.--swfritter 16:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My copy matches yours as for the credits, and I've made the corrections. Mine is a later printing, but I wasn't aware of a printing earlier than "15N". Feel free to add your gutter code to the notes ("14N" would still be April 1972, it's just unusual to have a second printing one week after the first, but stranger things have happened.) Thanks for catching the error. MHHutchins 03:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixing Chapterbooks

I see you've been trying to explain the process to some editors recently, so I though I'd have a stab at a more pictorial guide:

Already I'm thinking I shouldn't have mentioned the merges that might be needed afterwards, and there should probably be a How NOT to Fix Chapterbooks page too, and it's not linked into the help in general etc. But I'd like opinions on whether this is a useful start or just extra confusion. BLongley 19:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The merge is the only thing that's not part of the process proper. When I converted two publications of a story by Lovecraft into chapterbooks I didn't merge them because only the story was the same. Look at the entries for "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" under chapterbooks. The 1997 version had much metatextual additions. So I felt it should have a separate title record, because it was not a reprinting of the 1936 edition.
Other than the merge, everything else looks straightforward and simple. You might want to note that some chapterbook pub records do not show any contents at all and the title reference is linked to the shortfiction title record instead. In these cases, the edit process would still begin with adding a chapterbook title record, because the system will automatically switch the reference link to the newly created chapterbook title record, and push the shortfiction title record into a visible contents entry. (Thank God, or whoever designed it this way, for it saves further submissions.)
In both cases where I've recently come across submissions that were attempting to edit a malformed chapterbook content record, both chose to change the type of the shortfiction title record to "chapterbook". And in both cases, I advised them to updating the pub record, not the title record. Perhaps that can be emphasized in your tutorial. In any case, we can point editors to the page to help explain how to fix chapterbooks. Thanks for the visualization. MHHutchins 19:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments! Yes, your example of "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" is a good example of why not to be so blasé about merging chapterbooks. And the stress on not updating the title record for shortfiction is probably a reason to do the "How NOT to" page as well. Still, this was a brain-dump to see if pictures help, and I'm sure it can be improved a lot before we try it on others. I'm not going to work on it any more tonight (need food, and I have parcels containing books to open) but feel free to improve directly or make more suggestions. I have "vacation time" (is that the US phrase?) after this week and may do better then. BLongley 20:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I point out, when we have two quite different editions of a novel, one with a critical intro, an author's afterword, and a 15-page chronology of the series of which the novel is a part, and another with none of the above, we merge them. Two collections of the same title, with the same fiction content, but with different essays and story intros, and different prefaces, will be merged more often than not. I think i would have merged the two chapterbooks discussed above, but I'm not sure. -DES Talk 15:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Postscript (Venus Plu? X)

In your verified THDRMNGJWL1990 and BKTG17816 is Postscript (Venus Plux X), where "Plux" is a typo. There's also a typo-free Postscript (Venus Plus X). I was going to merge them, but the non-typo has a note about its being signed and dated (and is month'ed accordingly). Thought you might confirm against your pubs and do as you deem appropriate with them. --MartyD 22:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a typo. You can merge the records, and I don't think it would hurt to keep the note. (It's my typo record that has the note.) MHHutchins 22:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Looked at it cross-eyed. Merge submitted. --MartyD 10:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Arnold E. Abrahamson

I suspect this is Arnold E. Abramson Thanks Jonschaper 03:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're right. Give me some time to dig through some boxes and I'll get back with you. MHHutchins 04:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Seed of Earth

Oops! Accidentally approved merge.--swfritter 17:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. This is becoming the bane of my ISFDB duties, merging the Italian versions of the stories with the English language title records. I didn't even notice that the submission had been accepted. MHHutchins 17:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The really unfortunate part is that we will need to split them again once we improve our foreign language support :( Ahasuerus 18:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Kather vs Kathy Acker

Could you check the spelling of her name in the review of "In Memoriam to Identity" here As per Wikipedia she was born "Karen" and used the name "Kathy" Thanks Jonschaper 23:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The record is correctly attributed to a review of a book written by "Kathy Acker". Unless, it was changed after you wrote the note, I'm not sure what you're asking. Where does the "Kather" come in? MHHutchins 04:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I see. You're referring to this title and its pub. Neither has anything to do with the review I entered. Please feel free to correct the author credit for that pub, which according to the review I entered was published as by "Kathy Acker". Thanks. MHHutchins 04:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I just checked another source. OCLC agrees that the book was published as by "Kathy Acker". MHHutchins 04:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes Toward(s) a Mental Breakdown

Just put something out on verification requests. You are the only active editor with verified pub with this title in it.--swfritter 16:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

SFBC links

A small problem, nothing to do with the SFBC, just the way the Wiki works. Was entering links for '87, had all done right to the end and when I went to save, someone else had changed something in '85 and with that becoming an "edit conflict" the Wiki just says "You will have to merge your changes"..... and I have no idea how to do that. Sometimes on the talk pages there will be the same situation and I can just copy what I've just typed and then paste the whole thing in after saving the page, but don't think that would work too well in this case. I was surprised that editing a different year would even have affected the one I was doing, but there it is. Suggestions? ~Bill, --Bluesman 21:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That is unusual. Usually a conflict will arise only if someone has edited the whole page, or is editing the same section at the same time as you (or edited in between the time you started and the time you submitted.) Looking at the list of Recent Changes, I see there may have been a conflict between your edit at 12:10 and mine at 12:34 (it was both in 1987, not 1985). If you were still working on 1987 at 12:34 and saved it after, there would have been a conflict. Do you still have a window open with the edits? If so, you can open a new browser window (or tab), click on the section (1987) edit, copy all the info from your first browser (that has all your changes), then paste it into the second window, overwriting everything in that window, then save the changes. If there's a problem, we can always do an "undo". The only difference would be the small change I made, which I can replicate (the Barker title). Hope this helps and that your work won't be lost. MHHutchins 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Way too late to save the work. The only changes I saw were in '85. I had the tab open for about an hour to do the 50-60 links. Now I'm just saving every three months worth. I'll keep the option you stated in mind. When the 'edit conflict' opened, it did display all five years, that's how I knew the changes were in '85. Then again, the 60s hallucinations (without any bodily projections) may be re-surfacing....... :-) ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you know what they say. If you remember Woodstock you probably weren't there. I'm sorry that your efforts went to waste. It brings back memories of entering pubs with a hundred content records only to have it lost during a server slow down. That's what I love about Firefox. All I have to do is use the back arrow, and all the data I entered in the fields is still there. MHHutchins 03:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
See Help:Edit conflict for details on how to deal with this without losing work in future. Short version, there will be two edit windows on the edit conflict screen, with a diff between them. In the upper window is how things were left by the last save (usually by another editor). In the lower window is what you tried to save. You can copy stuff from the lower to the upper window and click save, and whatever is in the upper window will be saved. Or you can copy your work from the lower window to notepad or some other editor, close the page, re-open and re-edit, and use the saved content to re-do your edits, this may be helpful if there really is a merge, if the other person edited some of the same stuff you are working on. Note, both edit windows will be for the entire page, even if the conflict was just in one section. This is one reason favoring the "copy to notepad" method, because you can re-open and then edit just the section of interest. I hope this is helpful. -DES Talk 14:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Epilogue to Bradbury's The Illustrated Man

I've just imported contents for a new publication of Bradbury's The Illustrated Man and I noticed that the Epilogue is titled "Epilogue (The Black Magic Omnibus)". Checking Contento for that anthology indicates that it does include the Epilogue from the Bradbury book (not an epilogue to the antholgoy), and I think it should more properly be titled "Epilogue (The Illustrated Man)". The reason I'm bugging you about this is that you have two verified copies pubs here and here where the title is listed as "Epilogue: The Illustrated Man". The edition I'm working from lists the title simply as "Epilogue". My question is whether your copies are listed as "Epilogue" over "The Illustrated Man" as their title would seem to indicate, or is that just another way of disambiguating Epilogue. I'm far more used to seeing the disambiguation using the parenthesis. If it does have two lines on the title page of your, is this an adequate difference to merit a variant title? Thanks. ~Ron --Rtrace 04:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's correct to place the source title into the content title (in parentheses) to disambiguate generic titles. Yet, it appears that the person retitling the piece for The Black Magic Omnibus carried this too far, assuming (incorrectly) that the piece was an epilogue for the anthology. So we know that must be changed. As for how I titled the epilogue in the two editions I have, they're wrong and I'll correct it. From the date of the verification, I see it was done more than two years ago, shortly after starting contributing here. It looks like I wanted the epilogue to match the prologue which does give the title after a colon. The epilogue does not. So... I'm going to change my record to "Epilogue (The Illustrated Man)" and merged it with any pre-existing matching title record. (I just checked. There isn't one. Strange.) Please feel free to change the first record (in the anthology). You should also title your record the same and merge it with mine. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. MHHutchins 04:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I see what must have happened, looking at all those titles under "Epilogue (The Black Magic Omnibus)". Someone merged it with the true record, keeping the odd title, and a moderator approved it. I'll make the corrections and merge my record with this one. Thanks. MHHutchins 04:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

wiki formatting error on User talk:Dagon99

In this edit you made a typo ("/mowiki" instead of "/nowiki"). This left nowiki mode in effect for the rest of the page, which prevented the four tildes being converted to a signature when the page was saved, and also on the next save by User:Dagon99. I fixed the typo, but then the save converted the tildes into my sig when i saved, which was obviously wrong. I removed the incorrectly placed copies of my sig, and used {{unsigned2}} to attribute your comments and Dagon99's comments. I only mention this because it might look as if someone had mucked with your sig right as you were advising dagon99 on how to sign, and i wanted you to know what had happened. -DES Talk 15:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Now that it's out in the open, I'll have to give up my plan to have "nowiki" replaced by "mowiki". Say it aloud. Doesn't it sound so much better? MHHutchins 15:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


Your verified entry of [4] shows a price of $1.50 while my copy says $1.25. I know Ace sometimes didn't change there printing statements on reprinting so mine could a different book. Could you please check the price of your book if possible.Don Erikson 21:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My copy does have the $1.50 price, but I verified the wrong record! I'm going to remove my verification so you can enter the correct price and verify the record. The mistake was caused by my copy listing the first four printings without indicating that this is not the last (fourth) printing listed. Thanks for finding the error. MHHutchins 22:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Date on "The Ancestral Home of Thought" in Common Clay

In your verified Common Clay is The Ancestral Home of Thought, dated 1992. It looks like that title was first published in the Spring, 1980 Something Else (see: 980882). I looked in Locus, and while the contents of Common Clay isn't listed, I did find the contents for The Secret of This Book (cited as the UK edition, of which Common Clay is the first US edition), and it looks like "Her Toes Were Beautiful on the Mountains" is collected here (with the other parts all published in 1992, but "Ancestral Home" published in 1980). I wasn't sure if these titles should be merged, taking the 1980 date, or if something more is going on with that set of works in this pub. --MartyD 11:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this story is that it is part of two different Enigma series. That's why there are two different title records: one for each of the two series. I don't know how this should be handled, and really don't care if the title record in my verified pub is merged with the 1980 title record. As long as there is no support for a title being in two different series, it doesn't matter to me which you place it in. Even if you decide to keep it with the most current series (1992), the date for the merged record should be 1980. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I missed that they're in different series (hadn't actually tried the merge). I've been leaving records in different series alone. I submitted a change of the date on the record appearing in your pub to 1980 and propagation of the "first published" note, but otherwise left it be. Titles appearing in multiple series can be a topic for another day. Thanks for checking. --MartyD 10:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Outnumbering the Dead by Pohl

I just hit this publication, which you have verifed, as part of the Chapterbook Cleanup project. It lead me to this title record. This lists the work as of type NOVEL, but storylen Novella. This "Novel" is also listed as beign puiblished as a CHAPTERBOOK. This is a contradiction, probably due to the previous non-support for chapterbooks. I would like to either make the title a straight novel, and change the chapterbook pub to a novel, or else change the title record to a novella, and change the novel publications to chapterbooks.

I suspect this is near the borderline between novel and novella, but now that we have proper display for chapterbook pubs, the arguments for listing separately published works as novels regardless of length are IMO weaker than they were.

Locus calls this a novella in three adjacent listings (

However, you have verified this and are in a better position to say if it should be listed as a novel or a novella. Which way would you go? Please advise. -DES Talk 23:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely novella. Please feel free to adjust my verified pub record accordingly and merge it with any other title records that are novellas. Thanks. MHHutchins 05:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. -DES Talk 14:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The People of the Black Circle

I just edited the book club edition of The People of the Black Circle, and noticed that the publication date of the original entry (August 1979) doesn't match with the gutter code in the pub (J24 on page 214, which translates to June, 1979). I changed the date, and thought you would like to know this. Thanks, Willem H. 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The gutter code is not the publication date. It is the manufacturing date, indicating the week in which it was printed. The publication date is the month it was available to club members. For the most part this was the date on the club's announcement flyer. The People of the Black Circle was an alternate selection for August 1979, which is considered the publication date. This date averages 4-6 weeks after the week indicated by the gutter code. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
For more info on the entry standards for SFBC editions see here. MHHutchins 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. I changed the publication date back to August 1979, and added an additional note. Thanks, Willem H. 07:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

'88 SFBC

All done except for three: Watchmen, which I don't think even belongs in this year. There is a "Book Club Edition" noted on [OCLC] but it comes with the picture and ISBN of the '95 DC Comics edition. I can't recall the SFBC doing graphic novels as early as '88 and they certainly didn't do covers with ISBNs still on them until the early/mid 90s. This one just sticks out as wrong.

This comes from Andrew Wheeler's list of SFBC selections posted on the rec.arts.sf.written newsgroup. He does mention that it was an "enclosure" meaning it could be an offering of the trade edition at a discount. I wouldn't object to it being removed from our listing. MHHutchins 23:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Does it show up again in '95? I think it may belong in the listings, but maybe just a different year?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Nope, not on any other year's list. MHHutchins 03:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Second one (maybe two) are the two Martin anthologies. Locus lists them starting with the one AFTER Joker's Wild. Virtually all editions for sale on AbeBooks specifically mention BOMC, an oddity. Think maybe the SFBC might not have goy into these quite this early??? We definitely seem to have too many selections for February as it is. A thought.

Also from Wheeler's list. It wouldn't be unusual to offer Jokers Wild and Aces High in the same month. (The pb of Jokers was released in November, so the club may have caught up by offering books 2 and 3 in the series at the same time.) My search brought up six offerings, four mentioning "book club" with one of those stating "BCE/BOMC" shorthand for most dealers who don't want to do the research to determine which club offered it. Did you search for "Joker's" or "Jokers"? Locus1 doesn't list BCEs of the first three books in the series. I feel we should create a record for a SFBC edition of Jokers Wild. MHHutchins 23:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Here we go: OCLC 18122772. MHHutchins 23:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I found this as well but it has virtually no data. I created the one for the previous WILD CARD entry from barely more than this. I just have a slight allergy to "stub" records, I guess. Two in one month seems to be the trend anyway as the next two were both offered in '89 in MAY, with consecutive 'identification' numbers :-) The search engine on AbeBooks ignores punctuation (wish ours did that) so I probably saw the same list as you did. I try to make my searches there pretty generic as not all sellers bother with ISBNs, etc. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Stubs are better than nothing when you're looking for needles in haystacks. I think the "book club edition" statement on the OCLC record pretty much seals the deal. I can't imagine why a librarian would enter that data otherwise. MHHutchins 03:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The third one is Essential Ellison, which by size alone almost negates anything but a trade offered by the SFBC. The only copy for sale says BCE in the listing but has it with the same page count as the trade, which was a very large book (1019 pp) and over 25cm. I just can't find enough information to call it, but think it was a trade (possibly with an SFBC jacket). ~Bill, --Bluesman 22:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Also from Andrew Wheeler's list, but he doesn't specify that it was an "enclosure" selection. I see that Locus1 fails to list it, but that happens more often than you'd think (see above.) I agree that this may be an offering of the trade edition, so I wouldn't mind it being removed from our list. MHHutchins 23:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Didn't intend to imply removal. If it was offered it should be listed, as long as we note that it WAS a trade edition. I just can't find enough to make that call. The art books are easy because their size and probable small print runs makes/made it easier to just add a jacket with no price. Then there's the Searles one (until I found an image I didn't realize I OWNED it..... hoo-boy...) and I know I bought it through the SFBC and short of a price it IS a trade edition. The pattern seems to be the size. That's really the only clue with the Ellison. ~Bill, --Bluesman 23:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
We can then link it to the trade edition with a mention in the notes that it was probably the trade edition offered to club members. We've done the same in several other instances, especially, as you bring up, the art books. MHHutchins 03:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

'89 SFBC

Another year bites the dust.... almost! Just have to figure out if there was an SFBC Annotated Hobbit. The only kinks in the year were some TOTALLY whacked 'identification' numbers: 10776 for Piers Anthony's "For Love of Evil" which may mean this was assigned a number when it first was 'purchased' and for some reason didn't find fruition until '89; 15969 for Joel Rosenberg's "Guardians of the Flame" which is likely a typo and should be 15169; 151449 for Reeves-Stevens' "Nighteyes" which ought to be 15499. Locus definitely has some errors when it comes to SFBC editions. I'm not sure if they actually saw the books or if Doubleday just sent them some fliers. LOLOLOLOL!! Oh, and I almost forgot a late addition edition, De Haan's "A Mirror for Princes" with 37299 which shouldn't show up until the early/mid 90s. All for now! ~Bill, --Bluesman 01:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think creating another column for these numbers would help the situation? When the odd numbers appear, it might provide a clue about whether the number or dating may be incorrect. Or is their numbering system that dependable? Thanks for the good work. MHHutchins 03:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Definitely. When one is out of whack it really jumps out, and I have been able to predict a missing number (and find the missing pub) on two occasions just from the numbers. Of course that only applies to the eighties when there seems to have been an attempt at regularity. ~Bill, --Bluesman 04:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
If I get a chance tomorrow, I'll add an extra column starting with the 1990s listings. Would you think it better before or after the ISBN column? I'm leaning toward before, because all of them have this number, but not all of them have the SFBC-assigned ISBN. MHHutchins 04:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter to me. Any place to add them is fine. ~Bill, --Bluesman 00:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Avon SF Rediscovery series

I noticed your work on the Avon Rediscovery series after my upload of Bill the Galactic Hero. It seems only number 24 is missing now, which I also have in my collection. Shall I make and upload a scan now? Willem H. 18:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Great! When I saw your submission adding an image of Bill, I remembered not having a scan for the series page. In the meantime I found two more, and leaving only Aniara. After you've uploaded it, I'll make a thumbnail of it for the page. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Scanned & uploaded. Here is the image. Willem H. 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Wiki page for the Avon SF Rediscovery series has been updated with the image. Thanks. MHHutchins 20:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Willem, I don't suppose you have the missing Corgi SF Collector's Library books do you? We're almost there.... BLongley 21:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Alas, I don't. But I've added them to my "Things to look for" list. Every now and then I see one,but don't pay much attention if I already have another edition of the title. Willem H. 12:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Interior capitalization in "JesusWorld" in A Cross of Centuries

I am thinking Touring JesusWorld from your verified A Cross of Centuries and Touring Jesusworld from the unverified Attack of the Jazz Giants are candidates for merging. Locus lists it in both the Attack contents and in the contents for Pulphouse #19 with the lowercase "W". So I'm wondering two things: Does your pub capitalize the "W", and, if so, given our title capitalization rules, should our entry retain it or revert it to lowercase? Thanks. --MartyD 12:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and merge the two records. I'll note in my verified pub that the "W" is capitalized on the contents page, the title page of the story, and where it appears in the story. MHHutchins 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


Did 'em ALL, right from '69 to '90... think my eyes are welded open!!! Break time.... ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. Looks great. I've been moving some of the selections around based on the ID number, but keeping the main selections first. Isn't it strange how perfectly ordered 1973-1975 are...then 1976 looks like someone with a drinking problem took over the numbering! Thanks. MHHutchins 04:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
And didn't sober up until about 1986....... Think they were just using up all the four-digit numbers that were left --Bluesman 18:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Verified pub Alone Against Tomorrow

Your verified pub. The essay on page 13 seems to be a duplicate entry. I have another copy with a Gutter code of 27P.--swfritter 13:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I've removed the record, and rewrote the notes to indicate that the printing with your gutter code has been verified. Thanks for finding the error. MHHutchins 13:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Date of "Smith and the Pharaohs" in Dark Imaginings?

Would you check the date of Smith and the Pharaohs in your verified Dark Imaginings? Could it be 1912 instead of 1921? The same title appears in Into the Mummy's Tomb with a 1912 date. In that book's contents, Locus cites the first publication as The Strand Dec 1912. Thanks. --MartyD 11:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Date given is 1921, but that was probably based on the first book publication (in a collection titled Smith and the Pharaohs and Other Tales, Longmans Green, 1921). Research has shown that the story was originally published as a three part serial in the December 1912 - February 1913 issues of The Strand. I'll merge the two records. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dolores Claiborne

I added the interior art, changed the publication date and added notes to this verified pub to match my copy. If yours is really published in 1992, please reject my edit so I can clone your pub. Thanks Willem H. 13:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your update matches my copy and it was approved. The date of the original record probably came from Locus1 and I failed to note the discrepancy before I verified it. I've added a note that the book may have appeared in book stories in December 1992. Thanks. MHHutchins 16:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up on Heads

It seems it's only a Novella, so I've converted the Novels to Chapterbooks, one of which you verified. Pipe up if you think there's a Novel-length expansion we should keep - I'm not word-counting mine in the meantime though. BLongley 21:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm sure mine was the same length that was published as a "Legend Novella" in the UK. And I don't think it was ever expanded into a novel. Thanks. MHHutchins 21:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Reynold's Looking Backward, From the Year 2000

Added a printing statement to [[5]] and am wondering if it is part of the series "Rolltown" which seems to have "2000" in most of the titles?? ~Bill, --Bluesman 03:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, this is part of another series of two novels based on ideas from Bellamy's Looking Backward and Equality. Right now, I'm trying to figure out how to place these into a series with Bellamy's novels. I've removed Police Patrol 2000 from the "Rolltown" series as there appears to be no connection. It's a fixup of several stories for which I've created a new series. In fact, I've renamed the "Rolltown" series into the name of the main character in the three novels: Bat Hardin. MHHutchins 04:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Canadian edition of Eyes of Fire

And you said you didn't have any Canadian editions!! Seems [Eyes of Fire] has been getting images from all over!. Now it has the correct one with the wee Maple Leaf and correct price. As to the artist, I can see szafran just above the figure's left shoulder and your friend Mr. Bishop mentions him by name in his "Author's Note". Added both those tid-bits to the notes. ~Bill, --Bluesman 20:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I lied, or, should I say, I remembered incorrectly. This reminds me that back in the late 70s, early 80s, I bought a lot of coverless paperbacks from a certain Canadian book dealer. He shall remain anonymous because the practice is illegal, and innocent I, not knowing it wasn't right, found the price for these reading copies irresistible. This particular book is one of those coverless copy pubs. I put this one into the database just to get a record of the Michael Bishop title there. Thanks for filling the missing data, and for adding a cover scan. Also, thanks for pointing out the acknowledgment in the author's note (I'm a little red-faced for not knowing that.) MHHutchins 21:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Rose Madder

I added some notes and the interior art to this verified pub to match my copy. Thanks Willem H. 18:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

William Fryer Harvey

Lost link for this author : primary is W. F. Harvey with alternate William F. Harvey and William Harvey. Link from William F Harvey and from William Harvey point to William Fryer Harvey. Can you arrange that (four forms of this author linked to the same) ? I don't know if it's important but Midnight House and Other Tales is atributed to W. F. Harvey (search title on British Library Catalog).--ChanurBe 15:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

90% of all publications were under "William Fryer Harvey" so I made that the canonical name, with the others being pseudonyms. They all should be linked to the same author now. I'll check out the Midnight House credit and revise if wrong. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
My search on the BLIC gave the author as "William Fryer Harvey" and so did OCLC. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. Where is it shown as by "W. F. Harvey"? MHHutchins 15:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The Arno Press reprint in 1976 also gives the author's full name. I can't find any record as "W. F. Harvey". MHHutchins 15:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Moderan changes

See Scott Latham talk.--swfritter 15:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Astounding: John W. Campbell Memorial Anthology contents change

Afternoon! This. [6]. I put del in front of the Asimov essay as my copy reads "Introduction: The Father of Science Fiction" the del has deleted 'Introduction:'. Will leave till you have time to confirm, etc. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 19:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mine should have the "Introduction" before the title. I've approved your edit and removed the bad title. Thanks. MHHutchins 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Universe 5 - changed contents

Afternoon! This. [7]. I submitted a del for the George Alec Effinger title as it is GEO. Alec Effinger. I changed the page number of the Goldin story from 79 to 141. Del left for your attention. Message to Bluesman also. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 20:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

New Dimensions 3 - changed author George to Geo./ added note on different gutter code

Afternoon! This. [8]. I submitted a del on George Alec Effinger to be replaced by Geo. Alec Effinger as in my copy. Also added note on different gutter code. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 21:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

About these two records: I distinctly remember more than a year ago going through EVERY early Effinger title to verify that it was "Geo." or "George", making the corrections when necessary. Well, it appears someone has changed them back (at least the two you bring up here: Universe 5 and New Dimensions 3). I've accepted your submissions and will check to see if any of the other records have been changed as well. Thanks for catching this and bringing it to my attention. MHHutchins 02:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry that they changed it, but I was suspicious since Geo. was a pseudonym, but had not been used. Sorry for the clean up! Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 14:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I dragged out a set of "V" titles that had a "Geo." version in and was glad to see that that hadn't been interfered with. But I must admit that I'd prefer to see "Geo" regularised to "Geo." (with period). Do either of you share that preference? BLongley 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll admit to a prior attempt to drum up support for a little more regularisation and since then there has been a few more guidelines for not creating variants if only the punctuation changes, but I'm not sure where we are officially with names like "Thos.", "Wm." and "Chas." - we're consistent there but not with "Geo.". BLongley 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
To clarify without making you read all the background - it's Geo W. Proctor I'm particularly disliking, with the Geo. W. Proctor pseudonym. BLongley 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I am a strong supporter of regularization as far as punctuation is concerned. (We can't even regulariz(s)e the word "regulariz(s)ation"!) In the past, most objections to it arose from those who were concerned about searches. In Proctor's case, I'd go with "Geo.", but I don't have any affected pubs (I don't think). I'd bet most of those without the period really do have it on the pub. I just looked up two of them (Starwings and Stellar Fist) on OCLC who gave the author as "Geo. W. Proctor". Wait, I find I do have an anthology with one of his stories as "Geo" with no period. Let me check out the pub itself and get back to you on it. (And I hate the "Geo. W. Proctor" pseudonym as well. Have you noticed I've removed "uncredited" as a pseudonym for all names but "Emsh" and "Kelly Freas", a sticky wicket I don't want to have to deal with right now.) MHHutchins 21:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
No hurry on this at all, I've lived with this imperfection in data for a couple of years now. And I can live with the ise/ize English/American differences indefinitely when they're in Wiki Talk - if they were in a title then I'd want a variant, same as for "color" or "colour". But punctuation differences are going too far for variants. (IMNSHO.) BLongley 22:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Same here. Today I merged two title records for the Edith Wharton story "Mr. Jones". I guess I'll be hearing from someone soon. MHHutchins 22:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Soon? It might take years. (If that's a hint you did one of mine, don't worry - I know I added an Edith Wharton Collection recently, but I'm not possessive over that and support such merges.) I might get called over "Mrs Flittersnoop" at some point too, and I haven't even finished entering all the stories with her name in the title. BLongley 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, back on topic: I found another "George" that should be "Geo." here. And to immediately go off-topic again I also found Do It for Mama! in the same publication. Which is OK for the Table of Contents entry, but the actual start looks like this Do It for Mama!.jpg in my copy. BLongley 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that deserves a little more detail, but before I try and transcribe all that I thought I'd like to see what your SFBC version says? BLongley 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]The Mundis story in the SFBC edition of The Ruins of Earth has the extended title as yours, same exclamation point, same comma, same colon. The only difference is that mine has it as "Violence & Tragedy". Enough evidence that the title record should be changed and no need for a variant (I'm willing to overlook an ampersand or so.) I love how your edition makes the story look like a real New York Times article. No such bells and whistles in my edition. :( MHHutchins 22:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Starwings changed to Geo. at title and contents level. Can not find my copy of "Stellar Fist", but will continue to look in the temporal displacement vaults. Just purchased "Fire at the Center" and "Shadowman" and both are as stated (Geo.). Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Exile Waiting - question?

Morning! [9]. I have gutter code 32 R, but it seems too close for a reprint. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Mine definitely is "30 R". Maybe they didn't print enough copies in the first week and realized it a couple of weeks later??? Go ahead and add your gutter code to the note. Thanks MHHutchins 02:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Added. Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hirschfeld vs Hirschfield

Hi, could you doublecheck the spelling of his name here Jonschaper 23:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll correct the spelling to "Hirschfeld". Thanks. MHHutchins 03:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Change to verified pub The Farthest Reaches

this pub. The Inspector is credite to James McKimmey and not James McKimmey, Jr. Changed at title level of story after checking Tuck for hc credit.--swfritter 18:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. MHHutchins 21:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Change to verified pub SF 12

This pub. Crab Apple Crisis is Crab-Apple Crisis (The Crab-Apple Crisis in the TOC).--swfritter 14:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Date of "The Walking Sticks" in Innocents Aboard

I submitted a change of the publication date from 1999 to 2000 on The Walkng Sticks in your verified Innocents Aboard. Taps and Sighs had been incorrectly entered with 1999, which propagated to all of the titles that originally came from it. OCLC and Locus agree on the 2000 for that pub, and I have already changed that. --MartyD 10:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks. MHHutchins 17:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Rich or Rick Sternbach -

Morning! This. [10]. I found I mis-typed or others mis-typed Rich instead of Rick, could you please chech(k). Sent message to Hall 3730. I know I have had problems with this before personally. K and H are too similar. LOL Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 13:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Rick". Thanks. MHHutchins 17:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Change to verified pub The Playboy Book of Science Fiction and Fantasy

This pub. The Never Ending Penny instead of The Never-Ending Penny.--swfritter 16:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've discovered that it didn't have the hyphen in the original Playboy publication also, so I'm inquiring about the verified editions that are hyphenated. MHHutchins 17:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to your verified pub Destinies January-February 1979

this pub. Some page number issues and minor title issues. Why Go Into Space artwork from 117 to 116 - also changed title of artwork to have question mark. No question mark on title page but in toc and page headers so I think the title with a question mark is appropriate. Page number for Second Chance 175 to 176 to be consistent with the way other title page numbers are done. Page number for The Schumann Computer [3] changed from 267 to 271. Malthusian Crisis and Methuselah's Children is credited to Dr. Robert Prehoda on the title page of the story but Robert W. Prehoda (as credited) in the table of contents. Did not change.--swfritter 14:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to verified pub Destinies Aug-Sep 1979

This pub. Artwork for How to Build a Beanstalk on page 40 instead of 41. An Open Letter from Robert Heinlein changed to An Open Letter from Robert A. Heinlein. Artwork for But We Try Not to Act Like It changed from page 279 to page 278.--swfritter 14:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Dueling "Death Has Lost Its Charm for Me"

Bradbury's Death Has Lost Its Charm for Me in your verified Strange Attraction, dated 2000 with notes (agreeing with Locus) suggesting this is an original work. But there's Bradbury's Death Has Lost Its Charm for Me, dated 1986 from your verified All the Devils Are Here. Locus calls the former ss, while our record has it a poem of length shortstory. Locus and we have the latter as purely a poem. Are they by any chance the same, or is the 2000 one in fact a short story? --MartyD 11:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

These records are for the same poem and should be merged. (There is only the slightest of changes in one line, but it doesn't warrant a variant.). I merged them as poems and remove the length designation. Thanks. MHHutchins 15:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to verified pub Destinies Spring 1980

This pub. Joan Vinge rather than Joan D. Vinge. Sandra E. Koester instead of Sandra Koester which is the TOC credit. Many of entries had the wrong page number - the TOC uses the start of text instead of the title page; changed to title page number to be consistent with the way previous issues were entered. Page number for The City and the Critics is actually off by 15 page from the table of contents entry!--swfritter 14:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the multiple errors on these early verifications. I must have still been verifying through the TOC. Again, thanks. MHHutchins 22:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm dreading the day when someone goes methodically through my early verifies.--swfritter 00:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Day the Martians Came - added contents

Afternoon! I imported from this. [11]. All my interstitial stories used " not '. May not be important, but? Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 22:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we decided that the use of double or single quotes is a printer's choice, not an author's, and should not be the basis for creating variants. I'm going to merge all of these using the double quotes. Thanks. MHHutchins 22:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Harry. --Dragoondelight 12:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Shepard titles

Thanks for the merges. I didn't have time this morning to investigate the details, so I figured I'd do it in two steps. Nice surprise to find it all done.... --MartyD 01:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sonia Green[e]

Remember, you're the one who was hoping Lovecraft might get some attention.... Be careful: you may get what you wish for.

328331 and 362991 use Sonia Green (no trailing "e"), from THHRRRNTHB1975 with the same inactive verifier as we had for those Smith titles the other day. In the database are also 191679 and 974055, using Greene. Locus uses Greene for other printings of that title. OCLC lists Greene in this 1975 pub. I found an entry in The Vault of Evil crediting Greene. Do you think that's enough evidence to change it to Greene while cleaning these up, or would you rather I kept Green as variant(s)? BTW, every other story in that verified pub has a 1920s/1930s publication date, except for this title (which is given the 1975 date). Thanks. --MartyD 11:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This story was first published in Weird Tales, November 1923 as by "Sonia H. Greene", currently VT'd to Lovecraft. We have two other "Sonia H. Green" titles, both VT'd to other names. A bit of a mess.
Also keep in mind that some stories "doctored" by Lovecraft have also appeared in their original, pre-Lovecract form, all thanks to Lovecraft completists. Ahasuerus 14:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not proposing to do anything to Sonia Green. I am proposing to change the Green credit on the title and its variant, then combine them into the rest of the Greene-credited ones as appropriate, if there's sufficient evidence to support doing that without confirmation from the book. Otherwise, I'll just make them variants of the appropriate Greene-credited titles. I erred on the wrong side of sufficient evidence recently, so I thought this time I'd seek a second opinion before doing anything. --MartyD 23:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you've provided enough evidence that the spelling in the verified pub is incorrect. Since I'm going on vacation for the next week, I wouldn't want you to have to explain again to another moderator when you make the submission to change a verified pub. I'll go ahead and make the changes as you describe: change the credit for the records and then merge them with the Greene on. Good detective work there. MHHutchins 04:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Enjoy your vacation! --MartyD 10:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Marsprobe" from The Anthology of Speculative Poetry #3

See Rkihara's details. Would you be so kind as to compare to "Marsprobe" in your verified The Anthology of Speculative Poetry #3?. Thanks. --MartyD 23:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The poem in TASP #3 is the same as Ron describes. I'll merge the two records. Thanks for finding this. MHHutchins 04:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)